If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You must register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I still think Iíd rather have an AI .338 Lapua for the long stuff and a nice .308 gas gun for all the rest. Donít see where 6.5CM really fits into anything and it doesnít seem like itís that much better than .308 to justify the logistics issues. Not to mention a .308 can used de-linked machine gun ammo in a pinch.

Great to see. I have been attempting to minimize the amount of shit my hobbies accumulate and have been thinking about getting two 6.5CM rifles, a lightweight hunting rifle and a gas gun. I think the cartridge can do anything I may want to do with it.

About the same out to 500yds. 140gr 6.5 & 168gr 308. Beyond that distance, the 6.5 takes over.
at the FTW Ranch, where the SAAM Shooting School is taught by veteran instructors with tons of real-world experience, all instructors have their own Creedmoor rifle, and thatís by choice.

People changing and tweaking to improve performance has been going on since man threw the first rock at another living creature.

Im sure it is an answer. It all depends on the questions asked.

I don’t have one personally, and probably won’t get one because I don’t see a practical performance improvement. Lots of people like to toss out data and graphs and charts, but consistently fail to mention the weakest link in the accuracy chain; the shooter. A good shooter will be able to wring out premium accuracy potential out of just about any rifle.

But more often than not, mediocre/average shooters are looking for a technological solution to compensate for their weak skills.

I know lots of guys who think 65CM is the duck’s nuts. Cool with me. If I needed something like that, I’d probably consider it. But I don’t have the need. And honestly, I’m more of a mediocre shooter these days, and wouldn’t benefit much from its inherent accuracy potential.

You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.

People changing and tweaking to improve performance has been going on since man threw the first rock at another living creature.

Im sure it is an answer. It all depends on the questions asked.

I don’t have one personally, and probably won’t get one because I don’t see a practical performance improvement. Lots of people like to toss out data and graphs and charts, but consistently fail to mention the weakest link in the accuracy chain; the shooter. A good shooter will be able to wring out premium accuracy potential out of just about any rifle.

But more often than not, mediocre/average shooters are looking for a technological solution to compensate for their weak skills.

I know lots of guys who think 65CM is the duck’s nuts. Cool with me. If I needed something like that, I’d probably consider it. But I don’t have the need. And honestly, I’m more of a mediocre shooter these days, and wouldn’t benefit much from its inherent accuracy potential.

Thanks for the insight.

That’s a challenging but also true statement about the shooter; I resemble that remark. Like most things we know the answer but we don’t like the answer; improvement will require work and discipline.

Over on Primary and Secondary they were discussing ammunition weight and also we need to improve marksmanship back on the 7.62 vs 5.56 podcast I believe.

I hope it’s a better system for our service member’s sake. I also feel like everyone’s upgrading any system they can that may need it while we have the President we do; M27’s for the USMC, 6.5 CM carbines, Sig P320 program, some new .338 NM hybrid belt-fed, etc.

There's no doubt on will shoot better with it as it has less felt recoil, much better BC so it bucks the wind better and is flatter shooting.

The trade off is barrel life - and, for the record, that comment/question was from a PERSONAL perspective more than the government's perspective. I do not print paper and call it "money".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think either of was discrediting the cartridge (assuming you were referring to the dialogue between Sean M. and I), but I do believe he hit the nail on the head on we need better shooters in general.

There was a lot of dialogue by Ash Hess who had input in several Army training curriculum from what I understand and a theme of that video was essentially what Sean M. said (ETA: referring to good shooters and premium accuracy).

This video came out when the 7.62 was being pulled out of moth balls as an interim rifle to give us more capability against near peer enemies.

Ash indicated IIRC the issue was more so lack of proficiency on a large scale (paraphrasing) than a technical limitation.

This excerpt from that clip by Chuck of Presscheck Consulting also kind of indicated the same as far as 5.56 sufficiency.

I don’t think either of was discrediting the cartridge (assuming you were referring to the dialogue between Sean M. and I), but I do believe he hit the nail on the head on we need better shooters in general.

There was a lot of dialogue by Ash Hess who had input in several Army training curriculum from what I understand and a theme of that video was essentially what Sean M. said (ETA: referring to good shooters and premium accuracy).

This video came out when the 7.62 was being pulled out of moth balls as an interim rifle to give us more capability against near peer enemies.

Ash indicated IIRC the issue was more so lack of proficiency on a large scale (paraphrasing) than a technical limitation.

This excerpt from that clip by Chuck of Presscheck Consulting also kind of indicated the same as far as 5.56 sufficiency.

Anyway, this thread is about replacing 7.62 platforms with 6.5 CM. But, to draw this rambling post to an end; it seems a better arrow is always good but a better Indian is probably better.

God Bless,

Brandon

Brandon,

They are talking about 7.62 vs 5.56 as a general issue service rifle cartridge for “the masses.” The argument for 5.56 vs 7.62 as a general issue .MIL round is much the same argument as 9mm vs .45 as a general issue round for LE.

It’s not really relevant to the use of 6.5 vs 7.62 in a precision role by select users or even an MG role. The 6.5 and 7.62 are similar in size, weight and capacity. In some situations the 6.5 is easier to shoot and 6.5 is a cheap easy swap in existing 7.62 platforms.

They are talking about 7.62 vs 5.56 as a general issue service rifle cartridge for “the masses.” The argument for 5.56 vs 7.62 as a general issue .MIL round is much the same argument as 9mm vs .45 as a general issue round for LE.

It’s not really relevant to the use of 6.5 vs 7.62 in a precision role by select users or even an MG role. The 6.5 and 7.62 are similar in size, weight and capacity. In some situations the 6.5 is easier to shoot and 6.5 is a cheap easy swap in existing 7.62 platforms.

It is not really applicable to 6.5 vs 7.62 in a precision role with

Fair enough I meant in the precision arena when I said 7.62 platforms but you’re non the less correct in that it’s a stretch logically. It’s not exactly apples to apples.